Letter to the Editor

In a recent New York Times article that appeared in the Star Tribune (1-27), “U.S. troops standing guard on easily ruptured fault line,” I found the subtitle to be very interesting: “Underscoring their role as peacekeepers, Americans are manning checkpoints to keep a fragile alliance between Kurdish and Arab forces.”

Here’s an idea—Take the Kurdish forces and have them work as peacekeepers between the Taliban and American forces … then take the Arab forces and have them work as peacekeepers between the insurgents and the American forces in Iraq. Why are there no “peacekeepers” between the American military and their enemy? Why does the U.S. military find it appropriate to use violence against whatever group it wants to, but then will step in and be “peacekeepers” when other groups want to use violence? Maybe the U.S. military should work on peacekeeping itself.

Also in this N.Y. Times article, Gen. Charles Jacoby, the deputy commander in Iraq, said: “We keep bringing it back to focus on: OK, where and how do we provide the best security to the Iraqi people? And how does that create the environment that will someday allow for political process to take place?” The very people Jacoby is claiming to want to “provide the best security” for are the ones his military attacked and terrified with “Shock and Awe.” The “political process” he speaks of and his desire to see it take place was put into place using violence. And now he will protect the Iraqi people from those who want to use violence to take control … the very thing Jacoby did, that endangered all citizens of Iraq.
I wonder if there is just one “war” of all the thousands of “wars,” in our past, where the “war” aggressors, after invading a country, could truly be seen as “providing security” for the land they invaded. Or be seen as “peacekeepers” once they took control.

Could the Nazis be seen as peacekeepers if they stood between “warring” Polish factions?

Show me the difference between the Kurdish and Arab forces fighting, using violence, and the U.S. Military using violence against the insurgents. How can one be necessary and productive and the other counter-productive?

The right to “war” has always come from the ability to wage “war.” The only way you can sustain yourself in “war” is to be good at it. Your success in “war” is what justifies your “warring,” that is, the only place where justification for “war” can come from. To believe that the right to “war” comes from how your enemy behaves is to not take responsibility for your own freedom and desire to “war.”

When certain groups have the ability to “war,” at some point they will—to justify it based on the enemy’s behavior is how man has always rationalized “warring” in his head.

Frank Erickson
The letter writer has an op-ed column in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder newspaper.